For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[g5000]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Exactly. The hypocritical bigots are hiding behind the Cross just like the Klan does.

 

[martybegan]

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

They are actually being forced to act against their will, there is actual harm, either by complying or not complying, one is an affront to their morals, the other is economic. On the other hand the gay couple, once they get another cake are no worse for the wear, unless they are weaklings and their feelings are hurt, with no actual harm.

No, you aren't forced to do anything. You just aren't allowed to discriminate between customers.

They are being forced, and if you can't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that, you are not worth arguing with.

 

[PratchettFan]

And beyond that, it would be terribly unfair to the bigot providing a service of a "compelling interest". I'm a bigot grocer that doesn't want those F word for gay men in my store...how come the baker across the street gets to kick out the queers and I don't?

Necessity and timeliness. Plus point of sale and a contracted service are two different things.

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

 

[paddymurphy]

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

But you do have the right, according to anti-discrimination laws, to not be denied service. Or do you think we should do away with all such laws and allow any business to refuse to serve, hire or accommodate people based on race, gender, ethnicity etc.?

 

[g5000]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business. Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so. Well, why stop there? The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage. Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners! ..and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end....Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding....Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church....So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The point of the OP is to get Christians to start citing the Old Testament, which is merely a reference but not a set of edicts. The New Testament of course are the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's what Christians base their faith & decisions on. Notice the OP in the quote above made no mention of the New Testament's mortal sins described in Jude 1 or Romans 1.

This is a prelude of what's to come in Court. They literally will be debating the Bible. The cult of LGBT will say "you're honors, should we start stoning people for taking the Lord's name in vain?". (The Courtroom snickers)..."so then..your honors, how seriously can we take these claims of Jude 1 or Romans 1? How silly!". (omitting that Jesus said "he who is without sin cast the first stone" )

[and therefore the entire teachings of Jesus Christ, including the ones forbidding the aid of spreading homosexuality as a cult/social movement will all be thrown in the waste bin].

Paul condemns sex outside of marriage and masturbation in the New Testament. Jesus also condemns any divorce that is not the result of adultery, and he doesn't even like divorce for adultery.

So all of you selective hypocrites will be burning in hell with the homos. Enjoy your cake while you can!

 

[martybegan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

Already have case law that addresses that. Even comes out of Oregon. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw States that where there is a law of general application, a person seeking exemption from that law cannot simply state that they object to the law on religious grounds. From the opinion, "The protection that the First Amendment provides to "`legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion,'" see Hobbie, 480 U.S., at 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)) (emphasis added), does not extend to conduct that a State has validly proscribed. [485 U.S. 660, 672] - See more at: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw I highlighted to important part of this passage. The state can validly proscribe discrimination against gay people and claim that such laws violate the free exercise of religion fail. Before you cite to the RFRA, that only applies to federal legislation. A state would have to pass its own RFRA to restore the previous test for religious freedom, and Oregon has not.

Blah, blah blah, lawyers being oppressive, blah blah blah.

Yeah, I guess to a simple minded asshole like you the supreme law of the land does come across as blah, blah, blah.

As opposed to the simple minded, totalitarian "the law is the law" way of thinking? And lets be honest, your respect for the law evaporates in a second when it's against something YOU like.

 

[martybegan]

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the fucking case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

My opinion matters more to me than some wrong court case.

 

[Silhouette]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

 

[paddymurphy]

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

 

[g5000]

 

[ChrisL]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

 

[martybegan]

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

But you do have the right, according to anti-discrimination laws, to not be denied service. Or do you think we should do away with all such laws and allow any business to refuse to serve, hire or accommodate people based on race, gender, ethnicity etc.?

They should only be for 1)government services 2) time sensitive matters 3) necessary items. and 4) point of sale items. An additional caveat should be implemented if the refusal becomes widespread enough to disrupt commerce.

Anything else should be allowed to have at it, and let the market decide.

 

[paddymurphy]

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Read, studied and use both in my profession. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Each branch has the authority to refuse to enact a law that is not constitutional. The legislature can refuse to pass a law that it considers not constitutional. The President can veto one he considers not constitutional. Neither of these are reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court can invalidate a law that it finds unconstitutional. That is the balance of powers. They each have, in essence, a veto over laws. The final authority rests with the people. If they do not like a determination that a law is not constitutional, they can amend the constitution and the Supreme Court is bound by that.

The court cannot PASS law, which is what it has done with rulings like Roe v. Wade and this one on gay marriage.

And what does the "law" they passed state? They did not pass a law; they invalidated an unconstitutional law in each case. That is what their role is.

 

[martybegan]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

 

[ChrisL]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

If I opened a business, I would have no problem treating everyone the same.

 

[g5000]

It takes a special kind of retard to think this "No cake for you, faggot" thing is about religion.

It isn't.

 

[paddymurphy]

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the fucking case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

My opinion matters more to me than some wrong court case.

Of course it does. that is the entire point here. You don't care what the Constitution says or what the Court says. You get to decide, all by yourself, what you are going to do. If you decide that your religion requires that you not pay taxes to a school district that teaches evolution, you should get to refuse to pay taxes, right?

 

[ChrisL]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

 

[martybegan]

Necessity and timeliness. Plus point of sale and a contracted service are two different things.

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

It takes a special kind of retard to think this "No cake for you, faggot" thing is about religion.

It isn't.

It's obviously about hate and intolerance.